Pope
Benedict XVI’s removal last May of Bishop William Morris from his leadership of
the Diocese of Toowoomba in the Australian state of Queensland has caused rows
within the Church in Australia and made news around the world. At the time of
this writing, a diocesan administrator, Bishop Brian Finnigan, auxiliary bishop
from Brisbane, continues to oversee the diocese until the eventual appointment
of a new bishop.

Meanwhile,
the supporters of Bishop Morris (they call him “Bishop Bill”)including most of
Toowoomba’s priests and diocesan officialscontinue to campaign against the
dismissal, making it clear that they expect any new bishop to maintain the
status quo or otherwise face an arduous time. Sunday Mass homilies and parish
newsletters have continued to talk up the “injustice” of the Pope’s action,
while Bishop Morris himself has been active in Toowoomba and other parts of
Australia propagating his “victimized” status.

The episode
has underlined the stark contrast between the Catholic Church of Benedict XVI
and a do-it-yourself liberal church with echoes of the late 1960s. The Diocese
of Toowoomba is large in area, spanning more than 188,000 square miles, but
small in Catholic population, with roughly 66,000 faithful served by 35 parishes
and now only a handful of aging priests, and few if any new vocations in sight.

Such
happenings in a small and distant diocese might seem of little significance for
the rest of the universal Church, but the sacking of a bishop on doctrinal
grounds is a rare event. In the past, the major causes of forced resignation
have been personal misconduct or the serious mishandling of child abuse cases.

But in
light of what has occurred in recent decades in not-a-few Australian (and
American) dioceses, many Catholics might wonder why more wayward bishops
haven’t been removed before now for failing seriously to teach and defend the
faith. This year, with the retirement of bishops in several important
Australian dioceses, notably Brisbane, a fresh look at the selection process is
warranted. The Vatican needs to ensure that all their sources are reliable and
well-informed. Here one hopes the Bishop Morris saga will serve as a wake-up
call.

But
whoever is eventually chosen for Toowoomba will face the daunting task of cleaning
up the mess left behind by Bishop Morris, since any attempt at serious reform
will face determined opposition from well-entrenched supporters of the “Catholic-lite”
approach, and a majority of lay people accustomed to this as the norm after 18
years of “Bishop Bill’s” leadership style.

This
approach was evident from the time of Bishop Morris’ installation in 1993, when
he made it clear he would be pursuing a “progressive” agenda, made visible at
the outset by the wearing of a collar and tie rather than the usual clerical
attire. Before long, he was actively promoting “general absolution” (the Third
Rite of Reconciliation), despite several calls from the Vatican to cease the
practice, which can only be used validly in dire emergencies such as war or
famine.

In 2000,
a blueprint for renewal of the Toowoomba diocese, titled “Creating Our Future,”
was launched. It consisted of a mish-mash of political correctness and liberal
clichés (“collaborative and participative,” “enables and empowers,” “pastoral
leadership models”) and a direction for the use of “inclusive language in all diocesan
documents, dealings, and Liturgy.”

Recommended
books underpinning the program included titles by such dissenters as Sr. Joan
Chittister, OSB, Monika Hellwig, and Michael Morwood. The discredited American
document Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, was cited as a means
of promoting “Life-giving Liturgy.” Despite its lack of official status, the
document has long been used as justification for vandalizing beautiful church
interiors, or as a guide for designing barren, soulless, barn-like church
structures.

Among
the “Action Paths” for promoting “Life-giving Liturgy” in the parishes were
“encouraging the use of creative penitential services in parishes,” “promoting
liturgy that is culturally, spiritually, and gender inclusive,” “liturgical
experiences that are more relevant” and “liturgical experiences that create
more consciousness for life in the world.”

CLEAR PROVOCATIONS

There
was much more in a similar vein that would typify the “culture” of the diocese
over the following decade. Had Bishop Morris gone no further than this, he
would have been little different from scores of other liberal Australian and
American bishops who remain in office despite their serious leadership
shortcomings. What made Rome sit up and take notice (apart from the ongoing
problem of defiance over illicit general absolutions) was the bishop’s bizarre
decision in late 2006 to include clearly heterodox views in an Advent Pastoral
Letter circulated in every parish of the diocese as a teaching document.

He would
later claim that he was “misunderstood” and “misinterpreted,” and his views
“taken out of context,” but Bishop Morris’ words were unambiguous, and came
from a man who on his installation as bishop pledged to uphold the faith and
obey the pope.

“We do
face an uncertain future with regard to the number of active priests in our
diocese,” he began. The estimated numbers of priests in “parish-based ministry
in 2014” were six aged 65 and younger and eight aged 66-70, with another five
in “diocesan ministry,” including the bishop himself, to care for 35 parishes.

He then
offered the following “options” as possible solutions to which the Church in
Toowoomba should be “open”:

Given our deeply held belief in the primacy of the
Eucharist for the identity, continuity and life of each parish community, we
may well need to be much more open towards other options for ensuring that
Eucharist may be celebrated. Several responses have been discussed
internationally, nationally and locally:

- ordaining married, single, or widowed men who are
chosen and endorsed by their local parish community;

- welcoming former priests, married or single, back to
active ministry;

While we continue to reflect carefully on these
options, we remain committed to actively promoting vocations to the current
celibate male priesthood and open to inviting priests from overseas…

As a pilgrim people who journey in hope we need to
remain open to the Spirit so that we can be agents of change and respond wisely
to the needs of all members of the local Church of Toowoomba.

Being
“agents of change” who are “open” to women’s ordination clearly flouted Pope
John Paul II’s 1994 official declaration (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) that
the Church cannot ordain women and his 1998 decree (Ad Tuendam Fidem)
that discussion of ordaining women can be punished under canon law.

In the
former document, Pope John Paul wrote: “[I]n order that all doubt may be
removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the
Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the
brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever
to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be
definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

The
other “option” of recognizing Protestant orders was also contrary to Catholic
teaching.

But this
was no mere rush of blood back in 2006, as Bishop Morris repeated his positionplus
a few grievancesduring a radio interview shortly after his dismissal in May
2011.

For
example, he claimed that Rome controlled bishops by fear and turned a deaf ear
to local churches: “There is a creeping centralism in the Church at the moment.
There’s a creeping authoritarianism. My leadership was questioned as too open…and
there was the misreading of my letter of course.” Then he added: “I believe
that a conversation needs to be had, whether it’s on the ordination of women,
whether it’s on birth control.”

A LONG TIME COMING

Given
the public expression of such views, Bishop Morris was clearly unfit to remain
in office and should have been removed much earlier. But, as would become
clear, Rome’s patience seemed limitless, as was Bishop Morris’ capacity for
stonewalling.

A
document was prepared by two priests loyal to Bishop Morris, Father Peter
Schultz, the diocese’s judicial vicar, and Father Peter Dorfield, former vicar
general of the diocese, which detailed a long, drawn-out process during which
the Vatican tried to get Bishop Morris to mend his ways or resign. It shows
that the bishop’s sacking was the conclusion of a long and sometimes tense
back-and-forth dialogue with the Vatican, not the consequence of a sudden
decision, as the bishop and his supporters have subsequently claimed.

Titled
“Summary History of Bishop Morris’ Dispute with the Roman Dicasteries,” the
document was an addendum to a seven-page defense of Bishop Morris that was sent
on April 29 to priests, leaders, and the heads of other Christian denominations
in the Toowoomba region in anticipation of the bishop’s forced resignation.

The two
documents were part of a deliberate campaign to discredit the Vatican’s decision
and present Bishop Morris as a victim of injustice. Yet the summary document’s
detailed timetable shows that, contrary to Bishop Morris’ allegations, he was
fully informed of the charges against him and given more than four years to
correct the abuses cited.

Father
Peter Dorfield, now the administrator at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Toowoomba,
also called a meeting of “priests, pastoral leaders, and responsible leaders in
diocesan councils and agencies” to discuss possible action. This meeting duly
passed a motion that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC)
“initiate an open, honest and professionally-conducted study of the forced
early retirement of Bishop Bill Morris.”

In
addition, the Toowoomba Cathedral Newsletter of May 7-8 urged parishioners to
write to the Pope, the apostolic nuncio, and the Australian ambassador to the
Vatican (with addresses provided) expressing their opposition to the bishop’s
removal.

Several
days later, the ACBC, in a diplomatically worded letter to the new Toowoomba administrator,
Bishop Finnigan, commented on the dismissal and responded to the outcry from
Bishop Morris’ Toowoomba supporters: “The Pope’s decision was not a denial of
the personal and pastoral gifts that Bishop Morris has brought to the episcopal
ministry. Rather, it was judged that there were problems of doctrine and
discipline, and we regret that these could not be resolved. We are hopeful that
Bishop Morris will continue to serve the Church in other ways in the years
ahead.”

Later in
the month, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney offered a more pointed assessment:
“Rome was very patient. You could say the dialogue had continued on for 13
years and unfortunately Bishop Morris felt unable to give satisfactory
clarifications.” It is Catholic teaching, Pell said, that women cannot be
ordained priests, not “an optional belief.” He suggested the episode would be
“a useful clarification for people that Catholic doctrine is there to be
followed and bishops take promises to defend the integrity of Catholic teaching.”

As
Cardinal Pell said, the Holy See was indeed patient. The above-mentioned
document shows that once the 2006 Advent Letter was brought to its attention,
the Vatican requested that Bishop Morris come to Rome by February 2007 for meetings
with Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then head of the Vatican’s Congregation of
Bishops, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, and Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation of Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Bishop Morris rejected the
meeting, citing unspecified “pastoral reasons.” He said he had plans to come to
Rome in May 2007 and expressed his willingness to meet with the cardinals at
that time.

Cardinal
Arinze wrote that the matter was urgent and that Bishop Morris should present
himself in Rome in February. Bishop Morris again dismissed the request,
insisting he would be available in May but not before.

Then in
March Bishop Morris was notified that there would be an apostolic visitation of
the diocese to be conducted by Archbishop Charles Chaput (then of Denver). This
took place between April 23-28 and involved numerous interviews and meetings
with various diocesan bodies, officials, priests, directors of agencies, and
people of the diocese representing all levels of support and opposition to the bishop.

Archbishop
Chaput later prepared a report of his visitation for the Holy See, after which
the Congregation of Bishops communicated a request to Bishop Morris, dated June
28, 2008, that he resign. When further delaying tactics ensued, the
Congregation informed Bishop Morris that the request for his resignation was
being made in the name of Pope Benedict XVI.

Despite
this, more exchanges took place throughout 2008, until at Bishop Morris’
request an audience with the Pope was arranged for June 4, 2009. At that
meeting Benedict reiterated his demand that Bishop Morris resign. Even so,
further stonewalling persisted over the next two years with yet more exchanges
between Rome and Toowoomba.

Finally,
with Rome’s patience exhausted, Archbishop Guiseppe Lazzarotto, the apostolic nuncio
to Australia, informed Bishop Morris that the Vatican would announce his resignation
on May 2.

PLAYING THE VICTIM

Before
that date Bishop Morris convened his college of consultors, which unanimously
supported his decision to head off the Vatican announcement by issuing a
pastoral letter presenting his version of the long-running saga, to be read at
all Masses on the weekend of April 30-May 1, 2011.

In the
letter, Bishop Morris blamed everyone but himself, claiming, for example, that
his 2006 Advent Letter had been “misread and I believe deliberately
misinterpreted” by a “small group [which has] found my leadership and the
direction of the diocese not to their liking.”

He revealed
that Pope Benedict had told him Toowoomba “would be better served by the
leadership of a new bishop” and that Church law made clear that “the successor
of Peter nominates and may remove from office” any bishop he finds unfit for
the job.

According
to Bishop Morris’ version of events, he had been investigated since 2007, not
for any heterodox views, but simply for being “too open” and “too inclusive.”

Predictably
the secular media were mostly sympathetic to Bishop Morris. ABC Radio National reported
on May 3, “Hundreds of people braved cold, damp conditions in Toowoomba on
Queensland’s Darling Downs last night to give thanks to their ousted Bishop
William Morris.”

Eight
Toowoomba priests issued a media statement blaming a small number of
“disaffected” Catholics complaining to the Vatican. They declared: “The far
greater majority of priests and lay people of the diocese have found the
pastoral leadership of Bishop Morris to be constructive, informed, and
life-giving.”

Australia’s
National Council of Priests (made up predominantly of liberal clergy) then
chimed in with a media release:

We are embarrassed about the shabby treatment meted
out to an outstanding pastor of this diocese, who has faithfully ministered in
the Church in Queensland and throughout Australia since his priestly ordination
in 1969.

We are concerned about an element within the Church
whose restorationist ideology wants to repress freedom of expression within the
Roman Catholic Church and who deny the legitimate magisterial authority of the
local bishop within the Church…

Many of the people influencing these decisions have
limited pastoral experience and appear to show little concern for the sensus fidelium.… We stand in prayerful
solidarity with the priests and people of Toowoomba who are justifiably
aggrieved by this pronouncement.

To the Catholics of the Toowoomba we pray for a worthy
successor to Bishop Morris.

Clearly
“a worthy successor” meant a carbon copy of Bishop Morris. Since then, the
dismissal saga has been kept simmering, with various petitions demanding that
the Morris case be re-examined, that the Australian bishops put pressure on
Rome to reverse the decision during their October 2011 ad limina visit, and for
numerous far-reaching “reforms” to be introduced to allow local churches more
latitude.

A group
calling itself “Catholics for Renewal” has formulated an “Open Letter to Pope
Benedict and the Australian Bishops” and sought names of those endorsing it. At
the time of this writing, several thousand names had been gathered, both online
and via friendly parishes.

A
committee of the Australian Bishops Conference responded to the petition on August
2:

Many people have written or sent emails to the Holy
Father, the Bishops Conference, the apostolic nuncio, and individual bishops in
support of Bishop Morris. The members of the Permanent Committee are aware that
there are some who take a different view and they are aware of publications
that are openly hostile to Bishop Morris.

The Bishops Conference does not have any jurisdiction
with respect to an individual bishop or his leadership of the diocese. The
reality of our ecclesial structure is that the Conference is not able to
resolve the issues that have arisen. Not only do the local bishops not have
access to all the information on which Pope Benedict came to his decision, but
what has happened in Toowoomba is a matter between the Holy Father and Bishop
Morris.

Once the dust has settled, the important questions of who
will serve as the new bishop for Toowoomba, the degree of effectiveness of the
episcopal selection process, and the grounds for removing errant bishops, need
to be addressed. The Toowoomba dismissal highlights the urgent need for
consistently strong, orthodox leadership worldwide, especially in Western
countries where re-evangelization has to be an urgent priority after years of
cafeteria Catholicism and the deepening inroads of aggressive secularism.

About the Author

Michael Gilchrist

Michael Gilchrist is editor of the Australian religious monthly, AD2000, and author of several books on Australian Catholicism.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.